The Unsound Arguments of the “Non-Party” Boycotters

Published:EkhoNo. 9, July 1, 1906.

      Published according to theEkhotext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 11,

      pages77-82.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Ina leading article the other dayMyslargued that the Trudovik Group
in the State Duma must not be “split” by the formation of party
groups. The boycott of the Duma, it says, made it a foregone conclusion that the
extreme parties would not have their groups in the Duma. The Trudovik Group
will be far more useful as a non-party organisation working in conjunction with
its local, non-party “supporting groups”.

Thisargument is utterly false. Non-party revolutionism is a necessary and an
inevitable phenomenon in the period of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The
Bolshevik Social-Democrats have repeatedly emphasised this. Parties are the
result and the political expression of highly developed class antagonisms. The
characteristic feature of a bourgeois revolution is that these antagonisms are
undeveloped. The growth and expansion of the non-party revolutionary-democratic
element is therefore inevitable in such a revolution.

TheSocial-Democrats, as the representatives of the class-conscious
proletariat, cannot pledge themselves not to participate in the activities of
the various non-party revolutionary associations. Such for example, were the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, the Peasant Union, and to some extent the
Teachers’ Union, Railwaymen’s Union, etc. We must regard participation in the
activities of such associations as a temporary fighting alliance between the
Social-Democrats and the revolutionary bourgeois democrats. Only if we look at
it in this light can we avoid injury to the vital and fundamental interests of
the proletariat, vindicate the absolutely independent socialist point of view of
the Marxists, and formindependent Social-Democratic Party organisations wherever there is the
      slightest opportunity for doing so.

Toregard the formation of such independent Social-Democratic organisations as
“splitting” the non-party revolutionary organisations is to display,
firstly, a purely bourgeois outlook, and secondly, insincerity or shallow
thinking in one’s claim to be non-party. Only bourgeois ideologists can regard
the organisation of socialists in a separate party as a
“split”. Only those who are insincere, i.e., those who have inward
qualms about their ownconcealedbias for a party, or those who have
not given sufficient thought to the question, can regard the formation ofpartyorganisations as the “splitting” of the non-party
organisations. It is illogical, gentlemen. To be non-party means being neutral
towards the different parties (within the limits of the general aims of
revolutionary democracy). The condemnation of adherence to a party that is
expressed in the word “split”, is a departure from neutrality and
from being non-party and shows obvious bias for a party. You are either
hypocrites, or you cannot think logically, gentlemen. In point of fact your
outcry against splits and in favour of non-party organisation is intended to
cover up your qualms aboutyour ownbias for a party. A genuinely
non-party advocate of, let us say, a constituent assembly would not regard it as
a split if some of those who held the same view formed an independent party,
while continuing fully to subscribe to this demand.

Thus,let non-party revolutionaries develop non-party revolutionary
organisations. Good luck to them! But let them stop shouting so much about the
party revolutionaries who, they allege, are “splitting” the
non-party revolutionaries.

Nowabout the boycott. We are convinced that the boycott was not a blunder. In
the concrete historical situation that prevailed at the beginning of 1906 it was
necessary and correct. After sweeping away the Bulygin Duma, and after December,
it was the duty of the Social-Democrats to continue with equal vigour to hold
aloft the banner of struggle for a constituent assembly and to exertallefforts to sweep away the Witte Duma too. We performed our
revolutionary duty. And despite all calumnies and the belated repentanceof some people, the boycott did a great deal to sustain the revolutionary spirit
and Social-Democratic consciousness of the workers. The best criteria of this
are: 1) the fact that the rank-and-file workers supported it; 2) the brilliant
way in which it was carried out in the particularly oppressed border regions; 3)
the fact that the government issued a special law against the
boycott.[2]

Theopinion that the boycott was mistaken and useless is wrong and
short-sighted. It was useful not only from the moral and political, but also
from the immediate and practical point of view. It diverted all the attention
and efforts of the government to the struggle against the boycotters. It put the
government in a ludicrous and idiotic position that was much to our
advantage. The government was compelled to fightforthe convocation of
the Duma and as a consequence, it could pay very little attention to the
composition of the Duma. The boycott was, to use a military term, a frontal attack,
or a feint frontal attack, without which it would have beenimpossibleto outflank the enemy. This is exactly what happened. We revolutionaries made a
feint frontal attack, of which the government was mortally afraid, so much so
that it passed an incredibly idiotic law. Meanwhile, the liberal bourgeoisie and
the non-party revolutionaries took advantage of this frontal attack, which drew
the main forces of the enemy to the centre, to start a flanking movement. They
got into the enemy’s rear and stealthily made their way into the Duma,
penetrating the enemy camp in disguise.

Everybodybehaves after his own kind. The proletariat fights; the bourgeoisie
uses stealth.

Now,too, we put the political responsibility for the Duma that was convened by
the camarilla, that is subordinated to the camarilla, and is haggling with the
camarilla,entirelyupon the Cadets. It was our bounden duty to do
this because of the dual nature of the composition and activities of the Duma;
it has something that we must support, and something that we must strenuously
combat. Only bourgeois politicians can forget, or refuse to see, this
duality. Only bourgeois politicians can stubbornly ignore the role of the Duma
as the instrument of a counter-revolutionary deal between the autocracy and the
liberal-monarchist bourgeoisieagainst the proletariat and peasantry. Whether this deal will succeed even
      temporarily, and what its consequences may be, no one can tell at
      present. In the last analysis, this will depend on the strength,
      organisation and political consciousness of the popular movement outside
      the Duma. That the representatives of the class that iscapableof making such a deal predominate in the Duma, that negotiations for it are
    now in progress, and that the first, tentative steps towards it are being
    taken, arefacts. No “denials” by the Cadets, nor the
    silence of the Mensheviks can conceal them.

Ifthat is so—and it certainly is—then it is clear that the
interests of the proletarian class struggle imperatively demanded that the
proletariat should maintain complete political independence. It had to act
differently from the liberal bourgeoisie, which is ready to snatch eagerly at
any sop that is thrown to it. It had to warn the people with all the energy at
its command against the trap that was being contrived by the camarilla. It had
to do all in its power to prevent the convocation of a sham, Cadet,
“representative assembly of the people”. All this it tried to
achieve by means of the boycott.

Thatis why the arguments of those Right-wing Social-Democrats who, to the
amusement of the bourgeoisie, are now repudiating the boycott and denouncing
theirownconduct in the recent past are extremely trivial and
amazingly unhistorical. For after all the Mensheviks, too,were
boycotters; only they wanted to boycott the Duma at a different stage. It is
enough to recalltwohistorical facts,, to forget which would be
unpardonable for a Social-Democrat who attaches any value to his past. Thefirstfact: the leaflet of the Joint Central Committee of our Party,
which consisted of an equal number of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, plainly stated
that both sides agreed with the idea of a boycott and disagreed only about the
stage at which it should be carried out. Thesecondfact: not a single
Menshevik in any Menshevik publication advocated going into the Duma; and even
Comrade Plekhanov, who is so “resolute”, did not dare to do so. For
a Social-Democrat to repudiate the boycott is tantamount to distorting the
recent history of the Party.

Butdoes the fact that we boycotted the Dumanecessarilymean that we
must not form our Party Group in the Duma?Not at all. The boycotters who, likeMysl, think so, are mistaken. We
were obliged to do—and did—everything in our power to prevent the
convocation of a sham representative body. That is so. But since it has been
convened in spite of all our efforts, we cannot shirk the task of utilising
it. Only bourgeois politicians who care nothing for the revolutionary struggle,
and for the struggle for the complete success of the revolution, can see
anything illogical in this. Let us recall the example of Liebknecht, who
denounced, flayed and spurned the German Reichstag in 1869, but went into the
Reichstag after 1870. Liebknecht fully appreciated the importance of the
revolutionary struggle for a revolutionary and not a treacherously bourgeois
representative assembly of the people. He did not cravenly repudiate his past
actions. He quite rightly said: I did all I could to fight against such a
Reichstag, to fight for the best possible result. The result turned out to be
the worst. I shall be able to make use even of this worst result without
betraying my revolutionary traditions.

Thus,the boycott cannot be used to deduce that we must refrain from utilising
the Duma, or from forming our Party Group in it. The issue is an entirely
different one, namely, that we must exercise the greatest caution (andthisis the issue that the Bolsheviks raised at the Unity Congress, as
anyone can see by reading their draft

			      resolution[1]).

We must consider whether we
can utilise the Dumanowby working inside it; whether we have
Social-Democrats who are suit able for this work, and whether the external
conditions are favourable for it.

Wethink that the answer to these questions is in the affirmative. We have had
occasion to point out minor mistakes our Duma deputies have made, but on the
whole they have adopted a correct position. An alignmenthas arisenin
the Duma actuallycorrespondingto the revolutionary situation; the
Octobrists and the Cadets on the right, the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks
(or more correctly, the best of the Trudoviks), on the left. We can and must
utilise this alignment to warn the people against the dangerous side of the Cadet
Duma, so as to develop a revolutionarymovement not restricted to the Duma, to Duma tactics, to Duma aims, etc. In view
      of this alignment we shall—if we manage things properly—also
      utilise the non-party revolutionary democrats, and at the same time come
      forward definitely and determinedly as a Social-Democratic, proletarian
      party.

[1]See present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 292-93.—Ed.

[2]This refers to the tsar’s ukase of March 8 (21), 1906, published on March
11 (24), 1906, by which those convicted of campaigning for a boycott of the
elections were liable to 4-6 months’ imprisonment.